Why arnt people in the middle east standing up against ISIS?

[RidonKs]

The US government didn't act like anything... Except a sugar daddy. What they did with the money (steal it) is more their fault than ours, I would think. We have given them $26 billion dollars, and they've done what with it? Gave it to ISIS, when they deserted and ran in droves, leaving behind weapons far more advanced than ISIS had. Well guess what, now ISIS does have it, so the Iraqis will continue to run.

The Afghans are the same way. We leave, they surrender and abandon their posts and run every chance they get, over the same area where I MYSELF KICKED THE SHIT OUT OF THE TALIBAN/INSURGENCY five years ago. It's not hard. I did it. We did it. All it takes is to be aggressive. We lost men, sure, but for every one we lost, we killed 50. It's a war of attrition, that's how you beat an ideology.

I think ISIS would have been prevented with a small force of trainers, and a small force of garrison forces ALLOWED to engage the enemy. Unfortunately, when you basically advertise we are not going to fight anymore, people take advantage.

Remember Korea? We won. Kinda. They let us win, then when we left, they took over anyway. That's how you beat America. Rely on their populations discontent for military involvement, and wait. That's it.

I dont even remember the feeling of the country at the time, but withdrawing troops from the ME was a mistake. It was from the beginning, and it is now. As I said, the problem is, once we leave, the America populace wont let us go back.

And as I have said on this board numerous times, a few thousand US troops, without their hands tied behind their backs, would wipe out ISIS by Christmas. That's the difference between an army and a militia.

fair enough. honest as always.

[NumberSix]

Yup.

That's what I'm saying...isis was formed by sunnis who were treated like shit in their own country.

What are you talking about? Iraq was a majority Shia country that was ruled by a Sunni until George W. Bush decided to take him out.

[UK2K]

fair enough. honest as always.

My stance towards the armies in the ME and Afghanistan is the same as my stance on the poor here in the states... I will help you to an extent, but at some point, you have to help yourself.

We've given them all the tools to get the job done, they just need to do it. That's not a US thing, its an Iraqi thing, or an Afghani thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GrdTakvl8

That video explains my position to a T.

"You want everything from me. You want guns, and ammunition. You want fuel. You want trucks. But you're too ****ing ***** to go three kilometers down the ****ing road and get the people who are tearing this town apart"

I cant tell you how many times I saw that same thing in Afghanistan. The ANA and ANP joined up for money, and job stability. They dont give two shits about who's killing who as long as their tribe is winning.

[NumberSix]

My stance towards the armies in the ME and Afghanistan is the same as my stance on the poor here in the states... I will help you to an extent, but at some point, you have to help yourself.

We've given them all the tools to get the job done, they just need to do it. That's not a US thing, its an Iraqi thing, or an Afghani thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GrdTakvl8

That video explains my position to a T.

"You want everything from me. You want guns, and ammunition. You want fuel. You want trucks. But you're too ****ing ***** to go three kilometers down the ****ing road and get the people who are tearing this town apart"

I cant tell you how many times I saw that same thing in Afghanistan. The ANA and ANP joined up for money, and job stability. They dont give two shits about who's killing who as long as their tribe is winning.

At some point we have to just accept that some cultures don't want to live like us. We keep looking for a solution to a "problem" but maybe there is no problem.

We just assume that it's everybody's goal to have a modern western style society. We keep trying to figure out what keeping them from reaching this goal, without recognizing the obvious. Having a modern western style society isn't their goal. It's time to accept that people of these cultures are who they are and that the kind of society they have is exactly the kind of society they want.

[RidonKs]

At some point we have to just accept that some cultures don't want to live like us. We keep looking for a solution to a "problem" but maybe there is no problem.

We just assume that it's everybody's goal to have a modern western style society. We keep trying to figure out what keeping them from reaching this goal, without recognizing the obvious. Having a modern western style society isn't their goal. It's time to accept that people of these cultures are who they are and that the kind of society they have is exactly the kind of society they want.

besides the fact that this post completely skirts over the responsibility of western powers for conditions in the 2nd and 3rd worlds both... whether you think that responsibility is like 75% or fcking 2% it should at least be acknowledged....

it nevertheless addresses the central point. between world war one and world war two, the united states fundamentally altered its foreign policy and expanded the monroe doctrine across the entire world. the bush doctrine is a continuation of this same plank. that it is not just the responsibility of the united states to intervene where it believes it should, but it is actually an obligation to bring "democracy and freedom" to the rest of the world.

that call is virtually identical in character to the british who tried to bring culture to the savages. its the same as the french who had a civilizing mission. the belgians with w/e the fk they were trying. in character, though not in degree of violence, its not very different from nazi praise of the aryan race.these national dogmas vary in scale but fall on the same spectrum.

or how about Humanitarian Intervention aka Responsibility to Protect? thats a favourite particularly whenever the united nations are involved, tho still occasionally present in unilateral missions.

america as isolationist is properly in the american spirit. on this issue, ron and rand paul have it exactly right. the road to hell is paved in good intentions. on this matter, foreign economic/military intervention in foreign territory, throughout history it has only exacerbated conflict.

if you want to play live and let live in the domestic world of free market capitalism -- speaking to UK2K -- it only stands to reason that you should believe the same level of lasse faire should operate internationally as well.

[UK2K]

besides the fact that this post completely skirts over the responsibility of western powers for conditions in the 2nd and 3rd worlds both... whether you think that responsibility is like 75% or fcking 2% it should at least be acknowledged....

it nevertheless addresses the central point. between world war one and world war two, the united states fundamentally altered its foreign policy and expanded the monroe doctrine across the entire world. the bush doctrine is a continuation of this same plank. that it is not just the responsibility of the united states to intervene where it believes it should, but it is actually an obligation to bring "democracy and freedom" to the rest of the world.

that call is virtually identical in character to the british who tried to bring culture to the savages. its the same as the french who had a civilizing mission. the belgians with w/e the fk they were trying. in character, though not in degree of violence, its not very different from nazi praise of the aryan race.these national dogmas vary in scale but fall on the same spectrum.

or how about Humanitarian Intervention aka Responsibility to Protect? thats a favourite particularly whenever the united nations are involved, tho still occasionally present in unilateral missions.

america as isolationist is properly in the american spirit. on this issue, ron and rand paul have it exactly right. the road to hell is paved in good intentions. on this matter, foreign economic/military intervention in foreign territory, throughout history it has only exacerbated conflict.

if you want to play live and let live in the domestic world of free market capitalism -- speaking to UK2K -- it only stands to reason that you should believe the same level of lasse faire should operate internationally as well.

I do.

I've said before I think we should pull our troops back into the states, and let the world kill itself if it wants.

I actually felt good about what we did in Afghanistan. The media won't portray it that way, but we helped a lot of people. I personally handed out food and water, medical supplies, bought random shit from villagers, watched schools and hospitals and bridges be built. Only for the insurgency to blow them all up again.

Six is right, some people in the world just dont want to live like us. It sucks because those Afghans I interacted with DID want to live like us. Unfortunately, they are not the policy makers.

Its sad. It really is. I still think about some of the truck drivers I worked with. Nice guys, we taught them things and they taught us things, but the more I see what is going on now in places I used to walk around wearing nothing but shorts and sandals, the more I think we just need to worry about ourselves.

No truer version of survival of the fittest. Cut off military and financial aid to other countries, and let them all go at it. We should sit behind our walls and watch the show.

[UK2K]

At some point we have to just accept that some cultures don't want to live like us. We keep looking for a solution to a "problem" but maybe there is no problem.

We just assume that it's everybody's goal to have a modern western style society. We keep trying to figure out what keeping them from reaching this goal, without recognizing the obvious. Having a modern western style society isn't their goal. It's time to accept that people of these cultures are who they are and that the kind of society they have is exactly the kind of society they want.

You're right to a degree, but as I just posted, the populations want to be like us, while the policy makers and the vocal minority do not.

Through terror and keeping the population stupid, they can continue to live in the time before the wheel.

[Nick Young]

At some point we have to just accept that some cultures don't want to live like us. We keep looking for a solution to a "problem" but maybe there is no problem.

We just assume that it's everybody's goal to have a modern western style society. We keep trying to figure out what keeping them from reaching this goal, without recognizing the obvious. Having a modern western style society isn't their goal. It's time to accept that people of these cultures are who they are and that the kind of society they have is exactly the kind of society they want.

Yep. It's racist and patronizing to try to force western style democracy and freedom on people who have repeatedly shown they don't want it.

[RidonKs]

I do.

I've said before I think we should pull our troops back into the states, and let the world kill itself if it wants.

I actually felt good about what we did in Afghanistan. The media won't portray it that way, but we helped a lot of people. I personally handed out food and water, medical supplies, bought random shit from villagers, watched schools and hospitals and bridges be built. Only for the insurgency to blow them all up again.

Six is right, some people in the world just dont want to live like us. It sucks because those Afghans I interacted with DID want to live like us. Unfortunately, they are not the policy makers.

Its sad. It really is. I still think about some of the truck drivers I worked with. Nice guys, we taught them things and they taught us things, but the more I see what is going on now in places I used to walk around wearing nothing but shorts and sandals, the more I think we just need to worry about ourselves.

No truer version of survival of the fittest. Cut off military and financial aid to other countries, and let them all go at it. We should sit behind our walls and watch the show.

but if that is the case....

are there any cases of american intervention in countries around the world you believe were fundamentally wrong and immoral? i can list out the countries if you like, for the sake of argument. some of them are bound in history/geography, others very unique and isolated

iran
chile
cuba
guatemala
nicaragua
haiti
venezuela
brazil
vietnam
laos
cambodia
indonesia
phillipines
congo
afghanistan
iraq
panama

etc

now some american experts will tell you these 'missions' went wrong only when they grew too costly. but i'm asking a different question; were any of these impossible to justify from the beginning in your opinion?

bear in mind that, for each and every case, i'm sure dozens of hospitals and schools were build. in some cases they might still even be there.

[UK2K]

but if that is the case....

are there any cases of american intervention in countries around the world you believe were fundamentally wrong and immoral? i can list out the countries if you like, for the sake of argument. some of them are bound in history/geography, others very unique and isolated

iran
chile
cuba
guatemala
nicaragua
haiti
venezuela
brazil
vietnam
laos
cambodia
indonesia
phillipines
congo
afghanistan
iraq
panama

etc

now some american experts will tell you these 'missions' went wrong only when they grew too costly. but i'm asking a different question; were any of these impossible to justify from the beginning in your opinion?

bear in mind that, for each and every case, i'm sure dozens of hospitals and schools were build. in some cases they might still even be there.

Well, as someone pointed out, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I believe, in terms of military involvement, that most instances of American intervention involving more than a few hundred soldiers (or 'advisers') came about out of good intentions.

I believe the war in Afghanistan was right, it just wasn't finished. I believe Vietnam was right to a degree, up until they started drafting men into service. The military should be voluntary, always.

Although, I do agree there have been several instances of American intervention that we had no business getting involved in. I don't trust our government farther than I can throw them, and I think there are numerous times where our government has tried to *nudge* a situation one way or the other.

The Bay of Pigs is a great example. We had no business ever getting involved in Cuba's affairs. Same with revolutions going on in the ME today. It's not our business.

[RidonKs]

well i think you're underestimating the number of cases that were strictly in the interests of american investors, or strictly in the interest of american 'diplomacy'... those cases far outweigh the number that produced any long term prosperity in the country in question.

its laughable to me that even when americans can remember all the countries their government have invaded, they still find a way to justify them.

hell what do we hear vietnam called? 'the defense of south vietnam against the north'... when kennedy officially launched the war, it began as an attack on south vietnam. and stayed that way for several years before the country really settled into civil war.

so not only is that a justification of violence, its also a misnomer of epic proportions, as if the south vietnamese were desperate for help from, heres another classic foreign policy term, 'internal aggression', yes the internal vietnamese aggressors attacking the vietnamese.

[Payton2Dipo]

What is YPG, YPJ, Syrian army, Iranian army....?


Goddamn ish is fvcking stupid.